No products in the cart.


State Sovereignty

Thomas Jefferson 10A quote_i


State Sovereignty

By Elias Alias, editor * May 08 2013; updated March 01 2015

In our writings here at Oath Keepers the reader will encounter the word “state” used with different meanings. When the word uses a lower-case “s”, as in “state”, we are denoting, generally, a “government”. When the word uses a capital “S”, as in “State”, we are denoting a political entity, such as any of the “several States”. Michigan is a State; the government of Michigan (and any or all other States) is “the state”.

Here we want to note that in a transition made through revolution, Colonies became States. Each Colony, in becoming a State, created its own Constitution, created its own system of law, of weights and measures, system of autonomous infrastructure, monetary system, and indeed all the systems of governance properly belonging to a nation-State Republic.

The thirteen Colonies became thirteen sovereign nation-States and acted as such under the Articles of Confederation until the ratification of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Under the Articles of Confederation each confederate State possessed its own sovereignty. Each State may be described as being a “sovereign nation-State Republic”. It was a confederation of nation-State Republics. Those nation-State Republics were duly empowered by their peoples’ own respective autonomy and sovereignty to delegate representatives to the convention which became the Constitutional Convention. Their delegates are the signers of the Constitution.

As such, the States’ delegates acted on the authority which derived from the sovereignty of their respective States. As such, said delegates were “authorized” to sign onto the Compact which we now call the Constitution for the united States of America.

Bearing that in mind, let us now look at something from a speech given by John C. Calhoun, a Southern statesman and the fifth Vice-President of the United States, who authored the Fort Hill Address in 1831.
>>>embedded link:

In that speech Calhoun notes –

The error is in the assumption that the General government was party to the compact.”


He is saying that the General (Federal) government was not a party with the several States in the actual compact which the States signed. And when we look into the matter, we notice that indeed no one signed the Constitution on behalf of the General (Federal) government. That is history, and it is huge.

I say it is huge because it shows clearly that the several States created the General (Federal) government. That means that the Federal government, despite its modern-day attitude toward the States, did not create the States, was not present when the Colonies became States, was not present at the Constitutional Convention, and, finally, did not have a representative within the compact’s delegate pool sent forth by the States.

No one from, or representing, the General government signed the U.S. Constitution – because the General government did not exist until the States signed it into being.

Much has been, and shall yet be, said on the subject of State sovereignty. It is pleasing to note that a member of Oath Keepers Board of Directors, “Sheriff Richard Mack” of the CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs And Peace Officers Association), won a law suit against the Federal government. In a Supreme Court decision in 1997, Sheriff Mack won for America a major States rights decision.

In Mack/Printz vs USA (Bill Clinton administration) 1997 Justice Scalia wrote for the majority opinion. A synopsis of that writing is in a pamphlet distributed by Sheriff Mack and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). Here are some highlights from Sheriff Mack’s pamphlet –

(Justice Scalia, writing)

It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty” Gregory v Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Tuflin v Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison).

Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Article I, Section 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Framers’ experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict.

The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other “- – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.

As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

This separation of the two spheres is one of the “Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”
Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that eachwill be controlled by itself. The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
The power of the Federal Government would be augmented immeasurably if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States.

(end, Justice Scalia writing in majority opinion, Mack/Printz v USA 1997)

So there we see a Supreme Court landmark decision clearly stating that there is to be a proper balance between the sovereignty of the newly-created General government and the reserved sovereignty of the respective several States which created the General government.
At the bottom of any argument regarding States’ rights vs Federal supremacy, the most important thing is an understanding of what the word sovereignty means.

The word sovereignty indicates the supreme authority.  In matters of political and/or governmental power it was, in olden times, the authority of the King, over which no power within his realm could stand in opposition. The King’s word was the law of the land, and no one held any higher power or authority. Down through the Centuries various titles of sovereignty have existed, and by the time of the 18th Century a King of England ruled with undisputed sovereignty over the British Empire. The King we are most concerned with was King George, against whom the thirteen Colonies rebelled and revolted.

The successful American Revolution displaced any authority of the King of England and supplanted it with a brand new concept — the concept of individual sovereignty, in which, for the first time in history, the individual soul enmeshed in a human body and born with unalienable rights was seen to be the ultimate source of sovereignty. It is called “Freedom”. It is called “Liberty”. And, less often than it should be, it is called “Personal Responsibility”. It is also called “Self-governance”. All of those concepts — mental abstractions — are inextricably associated with what our Founders called “Unalienable Rights”. The principle was based on a perception of a “Creator”, referred to as “Nature or Nature’s God”. The idea held that the Creator endowed mankind with “unalienable rights”, and as such those rights were not to be subjected to any man-made government. That goes straight to the Original Intent of this nation’s Founders.


So the sequence of sovereignty originated with “Nature or Nature’s God” and moved immediately without interruption into the Soul of Man at the individual level. This sovereignty could be extended outward from each individual who wished to participate in the creation of a state or state-government, which the Colonists did during the Revolution, into a collective agreement or contract which would empower that collective to become a “State”. The Colonies became States by this process as individuals extended a small portion of each one’s personal sovereignty into the collective pool of sovereignty, which empowered and authorized and legitimized for most practical purposes a State’s autonomy as a governing body. Finally, the several sovereign States delegated representatives who would create and ratify the Constitution for the united States of America, thusly creating, by extension of personal sovereignty and State sovereignty, a General government which we today call the Federal Government. The sovereignty which would empower and authorize the General government originated in “We The People” and came through their States. The sovereignty of the States in compact represented the sovereignty of each State’s individual citizen, who thereupon, as Justice Scalia has noted, then had two governmental protections, a system of “dual sovereignty”.

Let’s close this article with a brief video presentation on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which will show clearly how this system of dual sovereignty protects all individual Americans today, using their States as their rightful interposition between Federal mischief and “We The People”.

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=””]


< Back to Academy-Sovereignty >

< Back to Academy >


Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net


  1. This is an important article in comparative law (USA – Canada) from 1990, long before the 10th Amendment Center became active with “Nullification”.

    The Locus of Sovereignty: Judicial Review, Legislative Supremacy, and Federalism in the Constitutional Traditions of Canada and the United States
    Calvin R. Massey
    Duke Law Journal
    Vol. 1990, No. 6 (Dec., 1990), pp. 1229-1310
    Published by: Duke University School of Law
    Article Stable URL:

    The article discusses and in my proves that the concept of nullification was a POLITICAL TACTIC, and not a statement of viable constitutional LAW.

    I urge you to consider the reality. Those who are attacking America and Canada, and who are actually merging us right now, need to politically dismantle both of our countries — and Mexico (about which I know nothing) — in order to complete the Communist regional union.

    The biggest gift that Canada or American could hand to these people — who have planned this overthrow for a century and thought every aspect out in advance, including the reactions of our citizens, in particular of our respective patriots — is to help them out by encouraging or allowing any or all of our States or any or all of our Provinces to declare UDI, i.e., claim “sovereignty”, and thus disintegrate and dismantle our nations FOR them.

    This would dispose of our lawful Constitutions. It would leave federal military ordnance including any ultra-secret military technology (such as that which was apparently used on 9/11) into the hands of the usurpers. We would be disarming America and Canada and dismantling our nations for them!

    They would then (ultra high risk) send in “UN” troops from the re-emerging USSR, from China, from Red nations to the South, etc., etc., to pull off a Red Dawn scenario.

    The common-sense route is to think out carefully what the incipient coup needs to to and plans to do, and DO NOT COOPERATE by handing it to them on a platter. Whatever it is apparent that they want, plan carefully and meticulously and do the opposite!

    If they want to disintegrate and dismantle, you put the wagons in a circle and hold the fort as one United America, not a disarrayed series of fragments. Ditto for Canada.

    The United Nations is not a “peace keeping” organization. It is a weapon of constitutional warfare which for many decades has targeted Canada for dismantling.

    For example, and I’m giving this to you quickly, because I haven’t finished my research: the so-called “separatist” PARTI QUEBECOIS (PQ) — caps to avoid French accents — was not in fact founded by RENE LEVESQUE.

    A “secret committee” of Communists who had penetrated the federal government of Canada, while sitting on the Montreal business premises of Power Corporation of Canada in 1967, determined that a party should be set up in Quebec which they in the federal level could then be seen to “fight” in a referendum over the invented issue of “federal-ISM” -vs- “separat-ISM”. The existence of the secret committee is documented in a book by a “former” Marxist-Leninist, who himself is involved in the overthrow of Canada. Therefore, it requires careful reading:

    Secret Committee chapter is scanned here:

    (LISEE moreover refers to American diplomatic notes he supposedly unearthed through access to information.)

    Men on that secret committee included:

    1) Pierre Elliott Trudeau (who, according to Alan Stang; also documented elsewhere), led a Communist delegation at Moscow in 1952 while this millionaire was an employee in his first paid junior job in Canada’s Privy Council Office.

    2) Jean Marchand – a leftist who helped to infiltrate respectable trade unions to turn them left;

    3) Maurice SAUVE – an apparently nondescript forestry minister who turns out to be very possibly the lynchpin of the PQ infiltration. SAUVE was the first President of the World Assembly of Youth (WAY), which is now documented in many sources available online to have been set up and funded as a covert operation of British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS) better known as MI6, and the American CIA.

    There is information online, including videos by G. Edward Griffin for the Western Goals Foundation, which confirms that General Donovan deliberately staffed the CIA with Communists. He went knocking on Communist doors to get them.

    MI6 as well as MI5 were infiltrated with Soviet agents at the time WAY was created; including the infamous Kim Philby. In addition, Soviet defector to Canada, Igor Gouzenko, speaking to journalist Peter Worthington, asserted and affirmed that Roger Hollis, Director General of MI5, was also a Soviet agent. Hollis was active at the same time.

    The World Assembly of Youth was set up as a supposed “anti-communist” front to oppose another youth front that had “become” Soviet-controlled. That’s the story line. The man in UK who saw to available British funding for WAY was Chancellor of the Exchequer Stafford Cripps, a Fabian socialist and pro-Soviet who advocated for Communism…. and who supposedly did not know and had to be “convinced” that the other youth front had become Soviet-controlled, before he would supply funding for WAY. Cripps’s appointment by Churchill was said to be evidence of Britain’s “full bolchevization”.

    WAY was thus set up and funded by MI6 and CIA, both of which agencies were Soviet-penetrated.

    WAY proceeded to lead the FEDERALIZATION movement among youth in Europe. In other words, regionalization, which is now happening in North America. WAY was therefore a covert intelligence operation set up and funded by Cripps, MI6 and CIA to FEDERALIZE (de-nationalize) European youth.

    Maurice SAUVE, the first President of WAY, was married to Jeanne Benoit SAUVE, who worked for UNESCO. Jeanne Benoit took a role in WAY with respect to WAY’s “Canadian” committee.

    Today, at the “SAUVE SCHOLARS” web site of the now-deceased pair (Maurice and Jeanne) is the admission that they both took party in WAY, in the “founding” of WAY, and that:

    “… in 1949, with her husband, Maurice Sauvé, she became actively involved in the founding of the World Assembly of Youth (WAY), an international youth congress that was being established as an adjunct to the newly-minted United Nations…”



    In other words, WAY was set up and funded as a supposed “anti-communist” front by Cripps, MI6 and CIA. Various sources allege that those behind WAY “hoped” it would also “counter” the federalist movement in Europe.

    In fact, WAY advanced the federalist movement in Europe and was active in many venues to that end.

    WAY was in effect a covert intelligence operation set up as an “ADJUNCT TO THE UNITED NATIONS” with a genuine view, in spite of denials, to federalizing Europe.

    This is the UNITED NATIONS attacking the sovereign nations of Europe to denationalize them!

    Now, back to the secret committee. And fast-forward. In 1967, the secret committee with former WAY President Maurice SAUVE on it (and his wife Jeanne of UNESCO fame in the wings), determines that a “party” must be set up to “fight” Quebec “separatism” (actually COMMUNISM from FLQ Castro-trained terrorists; and Marxism inculcated into the local trade unions and certain working class neighborhoods) by conducting a “vote” (referendum) in Communist-controlled Quebec alone, in which two FORMS of FUTURE GOVERNMENT FOR ALL OF CANADA would be “debated” on a “clear question”. The two forms would be “federal-ISM” and “separat-ISM”, thus putting the lawful Constitution of 1867 completely to the side, and suspending it! The debate was moreover a lose-lose situation, as the “federal-ISM” being pitted against the false flag of “separat-ISM” was in fact EUROPEAN FEDERALISM, the new Marxist regional union unfolding as the European Economic Community (EEC). Separat-ISM was a false flag because its object — which I see clearly according to all my research the past eleven years — was to use a UDI in Quebec (under veiled Communist and Fascist control, the Left and the Super-capitalists collaborating) to forcibly dismantle Canada if the “rest of Canada” refused to “negotiate” its own dismantling (go along quietly, please!) after a Yes in Quebec. The “federal-ISM” aimed at by the pro-Soviet Trudeau “option” was, as I said, nothing other than EUROPEAN federal-ISM advocated by Maurice and Jeanne Benoit SAUVE in their activities with UNESCO and WAY.

    Before I forget, it is vital to keep clear in mind that the secret committee which held meetings every Friday night in Montreal on Power Corporation premises, was a committee of FEDERAL MINISTERS FROM QUEBEC in the CABINET of LESTER BOWLES PEARSON. This was the FEDERAL de facto government of Canada on Big Business corporate premises, contriving a way for THEMSELVES to be able to impose the European regional system on Canada, by setting up a fake political party in Quebec disguised as ethnic “separatists”, whom the FEDERAL LEVEL would then allow to hold a referendum that is unlawful and unconstitutional in this country (I will explain that another day).

    Lester Bowles Pearson, aka “Mike”, was a Soviet agent. Alan Stang was unfairly chastized in The Edmund Burke Society’s hand-typed anti-communist review of May 1971 for Stang’s having accused Pearson of being a Communist. Stang was right! Elizabeth Bentley, a Soviet GRU defecting back to America, had exposed Pearson during the McCarran hearings:

    Therefore, the 1967 secret committee which included about a dozen people, most not named by the book’s author, being largely pro-Communist, Communist, pro-Soviet FEDERAL ministers in the Cabinet of Soviet agent Lester Pearson.

    1) Therefore, less than 20 years after WAY was set up as a supposedly “anti-communist” front with the help of Maurice and Jeanne Benoit SAUVE, we find Maurice SAUVE on a secret committee setting up a COMMUNIST political party to dismantle Canada. The fact the PQ is Communist (if not Communist-Fascist) is apparent from the 1972 political manifesto published and discussed in French only, which I discovered a little over a year ago on a law-library shelf, and have been translating.

    (2) The PQ party which these people ordained be set up, itself became the SOURCE of a new WAY-like organization run by the local and North American left, the “North American Forum on Integration” (NAFI), which in French was called the “Forum sur l’INTEGRATION Nord-AMERICAINE” (FINA) — caps to avoid French accents. Oathkeepers undoubtedly saw the NAFI-FINA web site when it was online; it’s gone now, but I have a half-gig backup of most of it.

    NAFI proceeded to launch a “North American parliament” IN THE CANADIAN SENATE CHAMBER in 2005, thus confirming the FEDERAL control over this Communist activity emerging from Quebec.

    NAFI proceeded to run annual “model” regional parliaments and YOUTH forums to advance North American federal-ISM, by encouraging our youth to adopt a “North American identity”. But this is precisely what World Assembly of Youth (WAY) was doing in Europe. And WAY still exists. They have a web site.

    If WAY is known to have been set up and funded by pro-Soviet Cripps, Soviet-infiltrated MI6 and the Communist-staffed CIA, then the NAFI which emerged from a fake party (the PQ) which was set up at the instance of a committee of Communists including the first President of WAY (and necessarily his wife Jeanne Benoit in the rear-guard) under a Soviet agent prime minister, to carry out exactly the same agenda as WAY had done in Europe… must logically, itself, also be some kind of “adjunct” to the not-so-newly minted United Nations, which is dismantling our countries to transfer our national and state sovereignty to regional institutions and to the UN itself, as the front of an incoming world government.

    Further evidence suggests that the CIA-State Department-Treasury-White House (please take no offense, you know what I mean) were involved in the first Quebec referendum in 1980.

    An “Outlook Report” produced by the above league of institutions under President Jimmy Carter (a Rockefeller Trilateral man) in August of 1977 spells out a number of “scenarios” for the ‘outcome’ of a referendum in Quebec.

    The Outlook Report chooses a “preferred” scenario: and it lays out the ideal referendum question and a two-part structure for the unfolding of the Quebec scenario, which the Report deems most likely to result in Canada’s federal level being able to “negotiate” with Quebec.

    What are they going to “negotiate”? They are going to negotiate REGIONALISM, for all of Canada, which is clearly the top half of the North American region to match the European region, under an incoming world government.

    The referendum question and scenario used by Communist RENE LEVESQUE in 1980 are identical to the question and scenario “preferred” in the August 1977 Outlook Report of the CIA-White House-State Department-Treasury.

    That suggests to me that the same international intelligence organizations — infiltrated by Communists at the time WAY was set up, continued to operate in the case of Canada through the “secret committee” of Power Corporation of Canada, and that these international intelligence units are indeed undoubtedly still infested and continuing to push the referendum agenda here in Canada.

    The stark fact is that America now has a “separat-IST” movement of its own! What excellent timing. Obviously, something has to be done to dismantle America in order to complete the FTA, NAFTA, and the SPP and post-9/11 merger long underway… when Quebec is forced to another fake “vote”. Is it not a bit too convenient that a group exposed in the L.A. Times as LEFTISTS, is advocating for “sovereignty” for the American States, while dressing it all up in what the scholar first linked above identified as merely “political rhetoric” having nothing to do with constitutional LAW? Is it not too convenient that a “separat-ist” (secessionist) movement has developed in recent years in America, in tandem with the intelligence-controlled “separat-ist” operation in Quebec and Canada?

    It is deadly to take this lightly. Rationally, logically speaking, it cannot be a coincidence.

    DO NOT DO what your leftist “separat-ists” want! They are not working for America, they are as veiled in USA as the Communist PQ is veiled up here. Take nothing for granted! Do not give it to them! They have you Americans in EVERY State working toward your so-called “sovereignty”, the way the PQ and their network up here has French Canadians in Quebec working toward THEIRS!

    The PARTI QUEBECOIS is Communist — and it was set up by some of the same people who set up the WAY less than 20 years earlier as an “adjunct” to the United Nations. It is the UN which is attacking our nations! It is the Communist UN which is attacking our nations through its agents infiltrated into our governments.

    Moreover, PIERRE-MARC JOHNSON, who succeeded Communist RENE-LEVESQUE as leader of the veiled Communist PQ, signed the CFR-Big Business (Communist-Fascist) blueprint to merge North America after 9/11:

    Building A North American Community (known as the North American Union):

    But, Communist RENE LEVESQUE always called his new system for all of Canada:

    The Canadian Community, and The Canadian Union.

    Don’t let them dismantle America for “sovereignty”. Don’t do it for them.

    The United Nations is not a peace instrument. It is a Soviet weapon of constitutional warfare.

    Kind regards,
    Kathleen Moore
    The Official Legal Challenge
    To North American (Soviet) Union

    – 30 –

Comments are closed.